Click here to subscribe today or Login.
First Posted: 4/18/2014
WILKES-BARRE — The legal war of words between former Laflin police chief Michael Flanagan and borough officials heated up on Friday with a federal court filing in response to Flanagan’s lawsuit over his demotion.
According to the response filed in U.S. District Court by Philadelphia attorneys Christopher Tinari and Michael Miller, borough officials deny that they wrongfully demoted Flanagan or violated any of his constitutional or federal rights.
“Defendants also deny (Flanagan’s) characterization that he ‘faithfully served borough residents,’ as a self-serving opinion unsupported by fact,” the attorneys wrote, adding: “Indeed, defendants disciplined plaintiff for various policy violations throughout his employment with the borough.”
Flanagan filed the suit in November, alleging he was “wrongfully demoted” back to being a police officer without cause, in violation of the department’s collective bargaining agreement.
In January, Flanagan amended his suit to include claims that Borough Council retaliated and made defamatory statements about him in response to the suit.
Named in the lawsuit are council President Paul Benderavich and council members Carl Yastremski, Patrick Gilhooley, Anthony D’Eliseo and Thomas Parry.
Flanagan says council defamed him in a Jan. 6 letter, signed by Benderavich, that was sent to the state police, state Office of Attorney General and the FBI. The letter was obtained by the media on Jan. 8.
Benderavich has said he wrote the letter on behalf of council requesting an investigation of an issue that was uncovered by police Chief Daniel Mimnaugh, who was appointed in October when Flanagan was demoted.
According to the letter, a woman reported to borough police on April 20 that a man impersonating a police officer stopped her car and demanded to see her license. The letter claims the investigation was “taken over” by Flanagan, and the woman identified Michael P. Yazurlo, son of Mayor Dorothy Yazurlo, as the man who stopped her.
U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo on March 28 dismissed Flanagan’s defamation, false light and invasion of privacy claims, but denied the borough’s motion to dismiss the rest of the case. They were given 21 days to answer the amended complaint, and that answer was filed on Friday.
Flanagan’s complaint and the borough’s response can be read online with this story at www.timesleader.com.
Flanagan’s contentions
Flanagan’s suit alleges he asked Benderavich in March 2013 if it was true that council was disbanding the police force. Benderavich allegedly replied “yes” and began pressuring Flanagan to have officers “write more tickets” and change schedules for officers.
The suit says the borough voted in October to demote Flanagan and hire another chief, that those actions were taken without just cause, and that they never provided Flanagan the grounds for demotion nor held a pre-demotion hearing, as required by law.
Flanagan maintains that soon after he filed his suit, the borough embarked on “a campaign of harassment,” including a letter threatening termination.
The ex-chief is seeking unspecified damages, attorney fees and costs, reformation of his employment records, letters of good reference and a public apology.
Borough’s response
In addition to saying Flanagan was disciplined over the course of his employment, the borough’s response hints at the reason for his demotion, saying officials “had good cause to appoint another individual to serve as police chief while Plaintiff was unable to work because of injury or sickness.”
According to the borough, Flanagan took ill and was hospitalized on May 29.
“Defendants lack sufficient knowledge as to his medical condition or reason for the hospitalization,” the borough says, adding only that Flanagan “was released to return to work for a brief period of time” but “went out on leave a second time in or about July, 2013.”
As for talk of disbanding the force, the borough says Flanagan “was a participant in various discussions pertaining to regionalization of Borough police services well before March 2013.”
Further, because the role of chief is appointed position, “serves at the pleasure at the Borough Council, and can be removed at any time and for any reason, with or without cause,” the response states.